DPS is flat out stupid. Bring back DD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander_Dragonfang

Again. Damage per second is something everyone does, Damage Dealers are specialists at it.

Calling a DD a DPS is like calling a Monk a healer because mantra and second wind, or calling dragoon a tank because of keen flurry.

---

I was just making fun of Duty Finder and how the DD's there aren't really specialists at it. I actually don't care about any of this other than to laugh at people, but any chance to call Duty Finder bad is a passion of mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheMax1087

Dps makes more sense than DD in a game like this where everyone can deal damage.

---

Take off your soul crystal if you aren't a healer, put Cure on as a cross skill class and viola, you're a healer. Get more aggro than someone else, viola, you're the tank. So no, DPS does not make more sense just because everyone can do damage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocond

I was just making fun of Duty Finder and how the DD's there aren't really specialists at it. I actually don't care about any of this other than to laugh at people, but any chance to call Duty Finder bad is a passion of mine.

---

Well, it is good at finding doodie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustPlainLucas

Take off your soul crystal if you aren't a healer, put Cure on as a cross skill class and viola, you're a healer. Get more aggro than someone else, viola, you're the tank. So no, DPS does not make more sense just because everyone can do damage.

---

I see what you are trying to do, but it's not even remotely a close equivalence. No non healer can do anywhere near as much healing as a healer, no non tank has the hp or def or cooldowns to survive anywhere near what a tank could, but with dps both tanks and healers can deal 65% of the damage a dps can. That essentially means that without time based damage checks you can deal enough damage to clear anything without a dps, meaning the role of the dps isn't just to deal more damage, but also to do so at a faster rate than the other roles, (coincidentally making them have little use in any content that has no dps checks besides just getting it done faster). Dps being the measure of that rate it makes much more sense for them to be called that

Errrr.... I may be coming in on the shortbus here... but I always thought of DPS as"deeps" which is more fun to say than "deedee"

I've used DD, myself.

and yeah, then identity of the DPS classes is in a bit of a crisis, or at least, among the trinity, they are resented more.

To be honest, I dislike that MMOs caved and started using player-invented terms as official terms for class roles. I would MUCH prefer if it was Attacker, Defender, Healer. Tank? Tanks didn't exist in medieval times. It's dumb and sounds silly.

ATK/DEF/HLR makes much more sense than DPS TANK HEALER, but alas its too late. I suspect YoshiP implemented the current role names because he's an MMO player and wanted simplicity and uniformity between player-based naming conventions and terms used by developers to avoid confusion, so developers simply use player terms now.

Out of context MMO doesnt really make sense either 'Massively Multiplayer Online' what? If you want to use a technically correct acronym for everything should it not be MMOG, or OMMG/OMG 'Online (Massive) Multiplayer Game" or the full acronym of MMORPG. Accepted use in linguistics evolves over time as does the applicable definition of terms in current times.

I prefer Damage Dealer so that's what I use myself, but since I'm never sure who will or won't recognize its acronym, I generally don't abbreviate it. When spelled out like that, I think it's pretty clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander_Dragonfang

when they actually were good armored enough to be invulnerable to their pairs or anti-tank measures, if they ever were, was at the expense of everything else, mobility, firepower, crew comfort/survivality. WWII proved that slow moving heavier tanks made to endure the enemy fire were not good enough and they actually never really granted the survivality of the crews, the whole "heavy tank" and "super heavy tanks" for that matter were ditched years after, with the victor tanks where the T-34 and the Sherman/Firefly

---

Yes, they were ditched later, which is why it's no longer a match to modern tanks. But it's that era's heavy and super heavy tanks that the gaming term was based on, the ones with defense at the cost of everything else. (And even when their defense failed against anti-tank measures, the very fact that there had to be "anti-tank" measures is because tanks were already tougher than anything else. Their gaming namesakes aren't 100% invulnerable to everything either, just tougher than anyone who's not a tank.) And it's that favoring of defense over other traits that gave the gaming role the name. (Depending on the game, you generally give up something in exchange for heavy armor, whether that's attacking power, speed, carrying capacity, or whatever.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander_Dragonfang

And switch tank to crowd control already.

---

While it kind of makes sense in a trinity game, that still seems odd, since in the only game where I've heard crowd control used regularly, it wasn't about tanks. That was a four role game, where crowd control referred to a support class's debuffing of enemies (as opposed to buffing allies, their other main purpose).


But yeah, Defender, Attacker, and Healer are better names for the roles, and only one of the three actually uses that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aillith

"deeps"

---

Where do you get the "ee" part from though? If you just read it as it is instead of letter by letter, wouldn't it be "dbbs"?